The plan and how it would be implemented. This is another area where the board doesn't have to provide details, just some of the generalities. This has been discussed at length in other threads.

Suppose the plan was for the Board of Directors to use its judgement as to if or when a new CEO was needed, and, when they decided, to conduct an executive search for candidates inside and outside of Apple, Inc., according to the Human Resources guidelines already in place and their discretionary criteria for qualifications?

ISS is in no position to tell Apple what to do. Apart from the fact that they have their own governance issues (especially conflict-of-interest issues) to deal with, I dont see a succession plan on their website (www.issgovernance.com).

Suppose the plan was for the Board of Directors to use its judgement as to if or when a new CEO was needed, and, when they decided, to conduct an executive search for candidates inside and outside of Apple, Inc., according to the Human Resources guidelines already in place and their discretionary criteria for qualifications?

Would that be satisfactory?

Probably not, based on what I hear other companies do routinely to explain their succession planning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

ISS is in no position to tell Apple what to do. Apart from the fact that they have their own governance issues (especially conflict-of-interest issues) to deal with, I dont see a succession plan on their website.

I wish you would provide a reference or just give a brief summary of what you are talking about,
because I am not getting it from your posts so far.

I've read quite a few of his many posts on this and frankly he seems more vague than apple.
It seems a general "more" or "not what they're doing now". I also would like an example of what he would like.

I will vote my shares for this proposal. I think Apple's defense is silly, a very weak excuse for creating as many impediments to understanding the inner workings of the company as possible. It is not the case that Apple will need to disclose the names successors in the plan -- they can be far more general than that. Some also apparently believe it's unusual for companies to have disclosed succession plans. It is not. What's unusual is Apple's handling of this issue, which is why they are facing shareholder proposals like this.

Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

You could start by reading and responding to the article I linked from the Financial Times. Go ahead, give it a try -- nobody else has.

OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.

Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.

I've read quite a few of his many posts on this and frankly he seems more vague than apple.
It seems a general "more" or "not what they're doing now". I also would like an example of what he would like.

You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realistic

Why doesn't this surprise me. I am voting my shares with the board on this. No good can come from a public succession plan,

Do you care to back up that argument, or just state an assertion without any support?

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I wasn't talking about stockholders, so I have no idea what point you are trying to make (in relation to my post).

Then I guess I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quinney

OK, I read the article, and it is apparent to me that it was paraphrased by AI in their article.
The only thing I see in the FT article that is not referenced in the AI article, is that some people want the Apple board to disclose Steve Jobs' medical condition. I still don't believe this is necessary, as it is the responsibility of the board to exercise their judgement as to the question of the CEO's fitness, not a bunch of armchair quarterbacks. The FT article mentions that some other companies have made further disclosures after similar shareholder proposals, but it doesn't say what the disclosures were. So really, I still don't know what you are on about, but I also don't care any more.

Just for future reference, if you want to understand why people didn't read your link, observe the fact that you did not give any idea of what was in the link, and the rest of your post had a very peevish tone which might have put off some people.

No, there's more about what is actually being requested, which contradicts Apple's official position to a large extent, and also the misinformation being spread here. The only reason the medical situation is referenced is that it points out the much greater level of uncertainty surrounding Apple's leadership than at most companies. It also named some of the other companies which were far more responsive to the request than Apple (which would not take much, since Apple has been completely unresponsive).

If I worried about peevish tones, I wouldn't respond to very much of anything on these boards.

Suit yourself. I don't think keeping this a secret has one, even tiny thing to do with Apple's success, which it seems to me, has to do with making great products, not trying to snow their stockholders.

If it has nothing to do with their success ..... then you shouldn't mind Apple keeping its plans secret from you or me ..... and all of their competitors.
Imagine if a plan was broadcast and some employees found out they were not going to be the next "great leader". How many "noses would be out of joint" and how many otherwise very competent employees would be "ripe for the picking."
Unlike you, I'll be voting against the proposal because I am under no illusion that I have to be privy to all of Apple decisions before I can make an intelligent decision on whether to buy more, or sell off my shares.

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

...at what point do shareholders get to make decisions for the executive team running the company? How do you balance shareholder "need to know" with executive need to protect critical strategic information in order to stay competitive?

Apple has disclosed that there is a succession plan in place, what more do shareholders need to know? While it is not unusual to publish a succession plan for a company, it is also a discretionary decision by the BOD to publish that and the level of detail published. Apple is not a co-operative company - they are a publicly held company with an active and informed BOD, producing revenue and stock performance well above the market trends.

What if Apple bowed to self-interested shareholder demands and the result tanked the stock and devalued Apple - who would be to blame? Certainly not the shareholders, the BOD would be on the line for such a decision and it's impact. No one would think to hold the shareholders accountable for such a decision, ill-advised though it may be, no matter how strident the demands to do it. But then maybe the interests of the shareholders in question was not to maintain the stock performance but to deliberately tank the stock and leverage that to purchase more shares. No one has a higher vested interest in the well-being and performance of the company than the BOD and the executive team, regardless of how many shares a pension fund holds. Shareholders have conflicting and sometimes competing interests where the company is concerned - and those interests are in no way consistently in the interests of the company and usually only in the best interest of the shareholders making the demands.

DISCLAIMER: I hold shares in Apple, Inc.

Great post ... lots of well reasoned and logical thoughts. Thanks.

Apple, bigger than Google, √ ..... bigger than Microsoft, √ The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.

In the event the Board determines the need to appoint a new CEO, the Board has identified the following candidates for consideration: redacted redacted redacted. Proprietary company information has been redacted to protect the interests of shareholders.

Nuff said.

For un-redacted content, recommend check Wikileaks.

I checked the document in Wiki Leaks and found that the candidates do no include Bill Gates, Steve Balmer or Eric Schmidt.

Makes more sense for companies that do not have any good executives to promote from within. Apple has dozens of executives that are more then qualified to be CEO. This sounds more like an attempt to stir controversy or just a firm that just doesn't have a clue about Apple. Not to mention that it will almost certainly be Tim Cook, so this is all just ridiculous.

Wow. How old is the average member of this forum? Last time SJ left Apple things did not go well. If I owned shares in Apple (which I should have done 22 years ago when I bought my first Mac) I would be EXTREMELY interested in how they think they can survive his departure. Last time, if anything, there was even more confidence that SJ did not = Apple and that it would go on without him. It did not.

You can look this stuff up as easily as I can. A great deal of information about what's normally in succession plans can be easily found. Since Apple has provided no information, anything is more. If you look back, you will see that my so-called "vague" responses are in reply to those who are spreading the red herring argument that names are being demanded.

So, someone posted above that they read your linked to "information" and there was really nothing there that would explain what you expect. So, why don't you just lay out in a few bullet points exactly what you think should be in a published succession plan from Apple. No need to be coy.

Wow. How old is the average member of this forum? Last time SJ left Apple things did not go well. .

And Apple was a far different company last time. Things at Apple are very different this time around.

Heck, the technology industry was night and day different back then - any comparisons to the 90's is just futile back then. One big difference for example was the massive infighting at Apple and the fact that Jobs was ousted by the board. That alone is enough to discount any comparisons. Things are day and night different from last time.

A Steve Jobs comes along maybe once in a lifetime. Whoever follows him will be less.

I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.

I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals

I don't agree. The problem is, regardless of how competent the next CEO is, it won't be Steve Jobs. The person may be smarter, more of a presence on stage, have a better understanding of technology, etc. but when Jobs is gone, he is gone and the worst thing Apple could do is to try and replace the person.

I've seen it happen in sports. A veteran coach leaves... and the next guy fails. It happens because the fans are trying to compare people, styles, etc. and not the position. It's also a wonderful time for a power grab from the 2nd tier individuals

Rumor has it that Woz will return, take centerstage in a white caftan, and introduce the white iPhone4 next week.

Look, Steve Jobs, like every other human, has his good parts and his bad. Some parts, like his temper and his ego, can do a lot of harm. They can also be used to drive a product to exacting standards.

But others can do the same, and maybe create less havoc in the process.

And remember that Apple survived and grew even after Steve Jobs left back in the 80's. He came back to a company that had kept the secret flame burning all that time.

Now the flame is a roaring bonfire, growing by leaps and bounds. It's fast becoming the company he always wanted it to become.

Apple is Steve Jobs' progeny, originally conceived with Sreve Wozniak, nurtured by many, many others who shared the dream, and now, finally, grown into young adulthood. It's the apple of it's father's eye. Why would he want anything more than to see it stand on its own two feet, and why would he not be working very hard to accomplish that eventuality.

Once again, certain people severely underestimate both Steve Jobs and Apple. Others of us are content to let them play this out their way.

And are these other companies also far more successful than Apple? They must be, if you want Apple to emulate them. Names, please, of these phenomenally successful companies?

Let's try some relevant question instead. Are these other companies led by CEOs who are widely considered to be inseparable from the company's success, and who have also been on medical leave three times? Have these companies exposed themselves to competitive threats by disclosing something about their succession planning to shareholders?

An Apple shareholder proposal to force the tech giant to publicly release a succession plan for Chief Executive Steve Jobs has been backed by Institutional Shareholder Services, a company considered to be one of the most highly influential of investor advisors.

The proposal was submitted by the Central Laborers Pension Fund in August, before Jobs announced his indefinite medical leave last month. Jobs handed most of his daily responsibilities over to Apple's Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook but retained his CEO title.

The Central Laborers Pension Fund fund owns about 11,500 shares in Apple, or about a thousandth of 1% of the Cupertino company's outstanding shares, according to the Associated Press.

ISS, a company that consults institutional investors on how to vote on such shareholder measures, also called for Apple's board to release such a plan to shareholders annually.

In a statement on the Central Laborers proposal, the ISS said, "All companies should have succession planning policies and succession plans in place, and boards should periodically review and update them."

The measure will go up for an Apple shareholder vote at the company's annual meeting on Feb. 23.

In its 2011 Investor Proxy Statement, released on Jan. 7, Apple asked shareholders to vote against the measure.

"Not just the CEO, is critical to Apple's success," Apple's board of directors said in the proxy statement. "Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."

In the proxy statement, Apple said it commits an annual review of succession planning for its senior management, including its chief executive.

"As part of this annual review, the Board has a formal evaluation process in which it identifies and recommends development of internal candidates for succession based on criteria that reflect Apples business strategy," Apple's proxy statement said.

Such a move would "undermine the Company's efforts to recruit and retain executives" and "invites competitors to recruit high-value executives away from Apple. Furthermore, executives who are not identified as potential successors may choose to voluntarily leave the Company," Apple said.

Aside from ISS, the Central Laborers proposition is also supported by the Laborers International Union of North America.
In a statement, Laborers International said: "We're concerned to hear the news about Steve Jobs' health and hope to see him return to full duties soon. However, this news demonstrates the need for Apple to do well by its shareholders, including our members' pension funds."

The group said it has successfully proposed similar CEO succession proposals to companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Verizon and American Express.

Laborers International also said Apple had misconstrued its proposal.

"We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said. "This proposal would not only benefit our members' retirement savings, but also would give reassurance to other Apple shareholders and help the company."

Oh yes, I am sure that a company that is so loose in it's organization and business practices has no idea what will happen if their CEO who already has a life-threatening illness cannot continue.

Just because everybody and his dog doesn't know what the plan is, do you really think they haven't got one?

Come on, a little common sense and less hysteria.

I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?

..."We do not expect them to provide specific names of future executives, but merely demonstrate they have a plan in place for naming one," the group said....

So, what would they have to do to "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that they have one? Waive a piece of paper around and say, "We have a succession plan. I'm holding it here in my hand. I can't show it to you, but here it is, and it's a doozy!" Stop hiding behind the words of others and say what you mean.

I don't get the "hysteria" charge, except as a cheap way to paint people who are asking for something very simple, reasonable and straight-forward, and easily achievable, as raving lunatics. And why, pray tell, would you want to do that?

It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.

It IS raving lunacy, to demand any such information from Apple's board. They are under no obligation to offer that information, and asking for it, especially in this manner which is dangerously close to intimidation, is exactly that...lunacy.

Has anyone actually READ the shareholder proposal? It doesn't require Apple to name any names - merely to tell people what their plan would be for finding one among internal candidates. What's the problem with that? Tons of companies do that.

My question is why does the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and now the ISS want to undermine Apple? What are they being handed under the table and by whom to get them to try and influence an Apple stock price drop, and put the company at a competitive disadvantage? Someone somewhere either has a political motive or their palms are being greased, or both. I'd like to know the whos behind it.

By the way, here's the actual resolution - it doesn't ask for specific names. What's the problem with this?

RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Apple, Inc. [sic] (Company) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Companys Corporate Governance Guidelines (Guidelines) to adopt and disclose a written and detailed succession planning policy, including the following specific features:

The Board of Directors will review the plan annually;

The Board will develop criteria for the CEO position which will reflect the Companys business strategy and will use a formal assessment process to evaluate candidates;

The Board will identify and develop internal candidates;

The Board will begin non-emergency CEO succession planning at least 3 years before an expected transition and will maintain an emergency succession plan that is reviewed annually;

The Board will annually produce a report on its succession plan to shareholders.

My question is why does the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and now the ISS want to undermine Apple? What are they being handed under the table and by whom to get them to try and influence an Apple stock price drop, and put the company at a competitive disadvantage? Someone somewhere either has a political motive or their palms are being greased, or both. I'd like to know the whos behind it.

The pension fund owns Apple stock, which has shown to be pretty volatile when news comes out concerning the health of Steve Jobs. They probably think a succession plan would stabilize things and protect their investment.